View Poll Results: Do You consider Iranians to be Europids?

Voters
160. You may not vote on this poll
  • No I do not consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)

    61 38.13%
  • Yes I do consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)

    27 16.88%
  • I consider most Iranians not to be Europeans but a few are(Exception made for the few)

    72 45.00%
Page 7 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 382

Thread: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

  1. #61
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    765
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan
    I can garauntee you, a Nordic bitch-bleach-blood will be dating one of the two.
    These sorts of trite, inane remarks don't exactly enhance the credibility of your posts.

  2. #62
    Kamangir42
    Guest

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Polak
    Ok, first of all, the information you got from racial compact, or whatever that site is called, isn't exactly real science. And I'm being kind here. If you don't realise that then you're naive and quite stupid.
    The information is quite obviously based on Coon. That is why I posted the second site which confirms that the "principal element" of the population of Iran is Irano-Afghan. Coon is a noted anthropologist. I'm sure he is not the intellectual genius that Polak is but he is the best I could find.

    If we get back on topic, the information that I have found confirms that Iranians are predominantly Irano-Afghan of the Europid/Caucasoid race. The pertinent question is: can anyone refute this statement thereby proving Coon wrong?

    If you cannot then I will simply not accept unsubstantiated claims like Iranians are principally Orientalid, Turanid or whatever nowadays rather than Irano-Afghan. Or that maybe Coon said there were a few Australoids in Iran so Iranians are gypsies (or look like them anyway).

    If you think I'm being naive and stupid, then so be it. I won't lose sleep over it.

    Secondly, I have indeed read the works of Cavalli-Sforza. The book you quote was pretty good for its time, but sadly, back then, Cavalli didn't really have much info to work with, so he did the best he could.

    Nevertheless, that map you're showing is an extremely rough representation of the data in his book.

    If you're going to quote something like that, then show us more details at least. I can assure you, I have looked at all the tables and graphs there, and Iranians don't come out looking like central Europeans, which is what that illustration alone indicates.
    I'm still waiting for your refutation of a study which "examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations". Does this sound like Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not have "much info to work with"? And what exactly, come to think of it, is wrong with Cavalli-Sforza et al. and its conclusions?

    The graph is an "extremely rough representation of the data" in the book? This is an outrage. I'm sure Cavalli-Sforza et al. will want to hear about this cynical manipulation of their data! Oh wait. It appears the graph is lifted straight from Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. Isn't that a turn up for the books?

    I never claimed Iranians "come out looking like" Central Europeans. In fact, Central Europeans are not even represented on that graph. My only aim in displaying this graph was to demonstrate that Iranians are very very genetically distant to Mongols and Turks, and quite distant to Arabs. My question still stands: how are Iranians "mixed to a considerable extent" with Mongols and Arabs. What exactly is a "considerable extent"? 5%? 10% 50%?

    Additionally, the graph does appear to demonstrate the genetic closeness of Iranians to European populations especially in comparison with Turk, Arab and other populations which surround Iran (which should not be surprising given that physical anthropoligists have found Iranians to be predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Cacasoid/Europid race - it all ties in, doesn't it?).

    Anyway, my challenge stands, show me some nice, new, detailed data on Iranian autosomal loci, then I'll tip my hat to both you and your friend Shapur.

    Or at the very least show us all of Cavalii-Sforza's data and conclusions on Iranians.
    I misjudged you. I thought you were going to shift the goalposts. Instead, you denied there were any goalposts at all. Touche!

    Who said you were setting the challenges? I posted that graph and asked if anyone had evidence to refute it. So I set a challenge. And your reply to my challenge was to laugh at Cavalli-Sforza et al. and set me a totally unrelated challenge about autosomal DNA (which surely Cavalli-Sforza et al. employed in their genetic testing - what do you think genetic testing entails? Measuring the chromosomes with a ruler? ).

    How about I just repeat what I wrote in my last post?

    "And if YOU can disprove their findings, go ahead. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that their findings re Iranians are false, not the other way around."

    By the way, I am not responsible for what Shapur writes and nor is he responsible for what I write.

    But just wondering whether you realise that it was Cavalli-Sforza who first came up with the idea that the Slavic R1a marker was proto-Indo-European? Yup, so this of course means that Iranians are not Aryan. And this is what he showed with his PC genetic variation maps.
    The graph I posted concerns the genetic closeness of several populations. It makes no mention of Aryans. It does not seek the explain the origin or migration of the Aryans. Why are you trying to muddy the issue?

    I am aware of these unproven "theories" and "ideas". At the moment, this is just conjecture. In contrast to the graph I posted, of course, which is merely a representation of genetic testing unclouded by any theory.

    We know only one thing about Aryans for sure. Iranians have always and continue to call themself Aryans. Our culture is Aryan. When have Poles (or Slavs in general) ever done likewise? Nor can you prove that the Kurgan people were Aryan or that that they carried HG3 because no genetic testing on their remains have been carried out. And you expect us to believe that three of the most important civilisations in history (Iran, Greece and Rome) were created by Aryan travellers from Slav lands yet the Slav lands themselves, which must have been teeming with these budding empire builders, remained a backwater with nary a peep? At the moment all your theory has are a few desperate Kashmiris eager to be your "Aryan" brothers and linguistically and racially Dravidic tribes in southern India like the Chenchus who are awaiting their invitation to the "Aryan" capital to, Warsaw (or has it been renamed "Aryanam Vaejah"? ), to return to the homeland.

    I think I should repeat what I wrote above because it's apt. "It’s quite pathetic how some try to steal our history and our culture yet condemn us unfit to claim it as ours!" I am well aware of Poles and their forlorn attempts to cast themselves as exotic "Sarmatians".

  3. #63
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    33
    Thanked in
    33 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    If Iranians can be considered "Europid" why not other Middle Easterns? Why not Central Asians?

    It's naive to base all your arguments on a simple "Genetic Chart" which can be easily manipulated/fabricated to represent anything. From looking at the Chart one would assume Danes and Iranians are next of kin. Yet who among us can't tell the difference between an Iranian and a Dane? Appearances are telling indeed.

    Iranians are Caucasians but so are Indians,Pakastinis,Afghans,Central Asians,Jews,Turks and other Middle Easterns(Iraqis,Saudis,Syrians,Palestian s,ect). So why not consider all these groups "Europid" instead of just Iranians.?

  4. #64
    Member
    Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,952
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    36
    Thanked in
    34 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    The problem is in the term 'Europoid'.
    I've grown to know it as just a synonym for the term 'Caucasoid' or 'White race'.

    As Kamangir, an Iranian clearly stated, Iranians are not Europeans, but are Europoid/Caucasoid. Yes, I consider most of the middle east and parts of central Asia to be Europoid/Caucasoid. Does that mean I want them in my country? Certainly not.
    Just as I don't want large groups of Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, Italians, French etc.

  5. #65
    Account Inactive
    Polak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 28th, 2007 @ 02:56 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/UP
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Apolitical
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Ahh, yes, Coon. From the 1930s. Well done there. Do you have a fetish with old books or something?

    I'm still waiting for your refutation of a study which "examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations". Does this sound like Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not have "much info to work with"? And what exactly, come to think of it, is wrong with Cavalli-Sforza et al. and its conclusions?
    No, he didn't have much to work with, considering how much more study has been done on all markers and autosomal dna since that book was published.

    You must be seriously short of brain cells if you think this book is up to date.

    Read this closely:

    Even today we're still having trouble getting detailed genetic data based on large enough samples.

    That's right, get it into your head that Cavalli's book is out of date. He didn't have much to work with. Genetics is moving ahead at a brisk pace. Is that a surprise to you?


    The graph is an "extremely rough representation of the data" in the book? This is an outrage. I'm sure Cavalli-Sforza et al. will want to hear about this cynical manipulation of their data! Oh wait. It appears the graph is lifted straight from Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. Isn't that a turn up for the books?
    It is an extremely rough representation of the data. Are you seriously saying that you can draw up a simple picture to show what Cavalli is trying to explain in a big fat book?

    Show us some more data from the book, including the actual table showing genetic distances between all the populations.

    I never claimed Iranians "come out looking like" Central Europeans. In fact, Central Europeans are not even represented on that graph. My only aim in displaying this graph was to demonstrate that Iranians are very very genetically distant to Mongols and Turks, and quite distant to Arabs. My question still stands: how are Iranians "mixed to a considerable extent" with Mongols and Arabs. What exactly is a "considerable extent"? 5%? 10% 50%?
    Central Europeans are there. We are talking here in the context of Cavalli's book, right? According to Cavalli Sforza, Central Europeans, in a genetic sense, include populations like the English, Danes, Poles, Dutch, Russians, Italians....and so on. All of these groups are very close in his genetic distances table.

    Hmmm...have you actually read the book, or are you just relying on some snippets you've seen on the net? I have to wonder?

    Additionally, the graph does appear to demonstrate the genetic closeness of Iranians to European populations especially in comparison with Turk, Arab and other populations which surround Iran (which should not be surprising given that physical anthropoligists have found Iranians to be predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Cacasoid/Europid race - it all ties in, doesn't it?).

    Perhaps, perhaps not. Anthropologists have made many mistakes in the past that current genetic studies are now refuting. Moreover, Cavalli's work was just the tip of the iceberg.

    I can't say either way till I see some detailed studies, and recent ones at that, of Iranians.


    I misjudged you. I thought you were going to shift the goalposts. Instead, you denied there were any goalposts at all. Touche!

    Stop blabbing nonsesnse and get with the program.

    Who said you were setting the challenges? I posted that graph and asked if anyone had evidence to refute it. So I set a challenge. And your reply to my challenge was to laugh at Cavalli-Sforza et al. and set me a totally unrelated challenge about autosomal DNA (which surely Cavalli-Sforza et al. employed in their genetic testing - what do you think genetic testing entails? Measuring the chromosomes with a ruler? ).
    Yeah, even today it's hard to find data on autosomal dna, and Cavalli somehow managed to get gold back in the 1990s. I'm sure he did have some info on Iranians, but it wasn't much.

    Do you have any detailed studies on Iranians. If so, show us. That's all I'm asking.


    The graph I posted concerns the genetic closeness of several populations. It makes no mention of Aryans. It does not seek the explain the origin or migration of the Aryans. Why are you trying to muddy the issue?

    I am aware of these unproven "theories" and "ideas". At the moment, this is just conjecture. In contrast to the graph I posted, of course, which is merely a representation of genetic testing unclouded by any theory.
    The problem is that it's old, and the world has moved on since then. You get that?

    We know only one thing about Aryans for sure. Iranians have always and continue to call themself Aryans. Our culture is Aryan. When have Poles (or Slavs in general) ever done likewise? Nor can you prove that the Kurgan people were Aryan or that that they carried HG3 because no genetic testing on their remains have been carried out. And you expect us to believe that three of the most important civilisations in history (Iran, Greece and Rome) were created by Aryan travellers from Slav lands yet the Slav lands themselves, which must have been teeming with these budding empire builders, remained a backwater with nary a peep? At the moment all your theory has are a few desperate Kashmiris eager to be your "Aryan" brothers and linguistically and racially Dravidic tribes in southern India like the Chenchus who are awaiting their invitation to the "Aryan" capital to, Warsaw (or has it been renamed "Aryanam Vaejah"? ), to return to the homeland.
    According to Cavalli-Sforza, and that book you quote, Slavs are direct descendats of the Kurgan people, who he said were the proto-Aryans.

    And your knowledge of European history must be extremely poor if you don't know anything about the achievements of Poland and Russia, both Slavic nations.

    I think I should repeat what I wrote above because it's apt. "It’s quite pathetic how some try to steal our history and our culture yet condemn us unfit to claim it as ours!" I am well aware of Poles and their forlorn attempts to cast themselves as exotic "Sarmatians".
    Well according to Cavalli-Sforza's theories, Poles have more in common with Indo-Iranians than modern Iranians do. Chew on that.

    Also, if we are to believe genetic studies from the last few years, after Cavalli's book came out, then we must conclude that Iranians aren't very European at all.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...gi?artid=56946

    But I don't want to jump to conclusions, because what I really want is a detailed report on Iranian autosomal dna...not just some old table from an old book, and not just some y-chromosome study.

    I think that's fair.
    Last edited by Polak; Friday, July 16th, 2004 at 06:54 AM.

  6. #66
    Account Inactive
    Polak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 28th, 2007 @ 02:56 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/UP
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Apolitical
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    By the way, I don't seem to remember seeing that diagram you posted in Cavalli's book at all.

    Might it just be someone else's interpretation of his genetic distances table?

    If so, then the diagram is usless. We don't know who did it, how they did it, and what they were trying to show.

    Moreover, do we know that it's possible to interpret the genetic distances as a diagram without any serious errors?

    I could be wrong, but like I said, I don't remember seeing that in the book. Where did you get it?

  7. #67
    Account Inactive
    Polak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 28th, 2007 @ 02:56 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/UP
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Apolitical
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Ok, now we're cooking...

    That diagram wasn't in Cavalli-Sforza's book at all. It's an interpretation of his genetic distances table. He had nothing to do with it.

    This is the site it comes from...

    http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.htm

    So, like I said, how reliable is it? Well I'm very sceptical.

    Not only does it come from 10 year old data, but we don't even know who put it together and how.

    Hmmmm...

  8. #68

  9. Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 29th, 2006 @ 07:07 PM
    Subrace
    Irano-Afghan/Corded
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Pan-Aryan
    Religion
    Zoroastrian
    Posts
    449
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Polak you have no arguments. You don`t understand this yes?
    The question was if Iranians are Europid. And yes they are.
    The rest who said no, know nothing about this stuff.
    You are not an anthropologist or an scientist. You are a child who know nothing.
    The real guys who know something about this stuff like Agrippa doesn`t deny that Iranians are Europid. He said that Iranians are Europid but not European.
    And this I can support 100%. Iranians are Europid but not European.
    For your genetic marker HG3. It is meaningless. When you want you can create a new thread where we could discuss. And Northern Paladin know nothing!
    I am sick of this thread because it is full of lies.
    Why not asking are Englishmen Europid/Caucasoid?
    Are they 100%? Or not?
    Bullshit...


    Bye

  10. #70
    Account Inactive
    Polak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 28th, 2007 @ 02:56 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/UP
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Apolitical
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shapur
    Polak you have no arguments. You don`t understand this yes?
    The question was if Iranians are Europid. And yes they are.
    The rest who said no, know nothing about this stuff.
    You are not an anthropologist or an scientist. You are a child who know nothing.
    The real guys who know something about this stuff like Agrippa doesn`t deny that Iranians are Europid. He said that Iranians are Europid but not European.
    And this I can support 100%. Iranians are Europid but not European.
    For your genetic marker HG3. It is meaningless. When you want you can create a new thread where we could discuss. And Northern Paladin know nothing!
    I am sick of this thread because it is full of lies.
    Why not asking are Englishmen Europid/Caucasoid?
    Are they 100%? Or not?
    Bullshit...


    Bye

    A child? Pffff....

    I'm not saying Iranians are not Europid. I think they are.

    They are part of the West Eurasian gene pool, and fully Caucasoid.

    But they are not European.

    You're saying that there are links between Iranians and some Europeans via HG2 and HG9.

    But I'm saying that's not much of an argument.

    I believe that the vast majority of Europeans are closer genetically to each other than they are to Iranians, get it?

    The vast majority, except a few outliers, like the Lapps.

    This is why I would like to see some new data on Autosomal Microsatellite Loci in Iranians. That would clear up a lot for everyone.

Page 7 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Friday, July 7th, 2006, 08:13 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, June 26th, 2006, 09:22 PM
  3. Ainus: Non-Europid or Europid?
    By Glenlivet in forum Non-Europoid
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •